or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company? - Page 20

post #571 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

DS does claim to have this type of valid data, and by the following description on his website, it would appear that there is an awful lot of it available. However, he has been unwilling to share any details up until this point, as far as a I'm aware. Now might be an excellent time, perhaps. A detailed description for how he goes about performing his double-blind testing could be instructive.

The above quote located within the response to FAQ question #7 on the Upgrade Company website.

There was a lovely little movie from 1980 with Treat Williams called "Why Would I Lie?" that comes to mind for me right now. Treat's character would tell the most outrageous lies with straight look on his face. When asked about what he just said, he would turn it back onto the questioner with "Why Would I Lie?" Most people being at least somewhat trusting couldn't think of why he would lie, and would accept what he said as truth.

I'm not sure that movie would do so well today after Enron, Tyco, BP, AIG. Lehman - and now Corsine and MF Global - etc, where executive after executive testified before congress and sat there and lied through their teeth. Whether we believed them at time doesn't matter anymore, we now know the extent of their lying ... and the extent of our gullibility.

So, why would TUC lie about rigorous, double-blind testing?

Jeff
post #572 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

There's the rub; everything else is not equal. If the two units have different frequency response measurements, and you generate a single calibration to load into both, then the unit that was not used to do the measurements will either be advantaged or disadvantaged.

Do you really think that the FR differs in any significant way? If that were so, you could measure it with standard instrumentation.

Quote:


There was a clear difference in the pink noise played through the stock and modded 5508's.

With a sighted comparison.

Quote:


A single mic position could be used for the three requisite measurements, so there would go that variable.

Agreed but what kind of EQ result would you expect from it?

I, personally, believe that the best test is the simplest and with the fewest variables and complications. First, do an A/B/X with pink noise, no EQ and "direct" and with a mono speaker. Then, perhaps, go stereo and, after that, use musical examples. Adding multichannel and Audyssey will only muddy the results and should not be used unless the previous simple tests reveal that there is any difference at all. Oh, and ground the MLP.
post #573 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Do you really think that the FR differs in any significant way? If that were so, you could measure it with standard instrumentation.

"Think?" Yes, but my thinking has been called into question.
Quote:


With a sighted comparison.

Precisely, We should have used pink noise in the A/B/X.

Quote:


Agreed but what kind of EQ result would you expect from it?

I would expect that both units would have as close to the same response as MultEQ XT 32 can achieve. A truly better sounding unit could still have a lower noise floor, and more transparency and detail. But at least FR monkeying will have been dealt with.

Jeff
post #574 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post


I, personally, believe that the best test is the simplest and with the fewest variables and complications. First, do an A/B/X with pink noise, no EQ and "direct" and with a mono speaker. Then, perhaps, go stereo and, after that, use musical examples. Adding multichannel and Audyssey will only muddy the results and should not be used unless the previous simple tests reveal that there is any difference at all. Oh, and ground the MLP.

I understand but doing an A/B/X test with material and a speaker configuration that bears no relationship to actual use seems ... wrong. I'd be OK with only stereo, but what about my concern that a FR tweak that would be EQ'd out in practice isn't fair? I don't *really* want to be able to be successful at a blind A/B/X test ... per se. I want to know if one unit has better sound quality than the other ... in my room ... after a complete calibration.

post #575 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

DS does claim to have this type of valid data, and by the following description on his website, it would appear that there is an awful lot of it available. However, he has been unwilling to share any details up until this point, as far as a I'm aware.

I happen to own a neat-o bridge in Brooklyn I'd be willing to part with for a very nominal sum......
post #576 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I understand but doing an A/B/X test with material and a speaker configuration that bears no relationship to actual use seems ... wrong. I'd be OK with only stereo, but what about my concern that a FR tweak that would be EQ'd out in practice isn't fair? I don't *really* want to be able to be successful at a blind A/B/X test ... per se. I want to know if one unit has better sound quality than the other ... in my room ... after a complete calibration.

That is what we all want to know but there are 2 ways to be certain of it. One is to do the proper basic A/B/X and the other is to put your trust in a multivariate sighted ad hoc comparison. The introduction of multiple variables muddies both approaches.
post #577 of 1596
I am the third member of the session at Dennis'. I brought both the upgraded Onkyo 5508 and the upgraded NuForce Edition Oppo 83SE.

I have not participated in basically any audio fora since November.

I also want to make it clear that when I arrived, I was totally unfamiliar with Dennis' system and its sound.

I want to make comment and others may differ about this, that we were quite probably losing much of the improved performance of the Onkyo 5508 through the usage of the switching box. The switching box may have as some may think leveled the playing field, but in so doing removed much of the benefit of the upgrades themselves.

Even when we listened to the stock versus the upgraded units with the switching box we (particularly Dennis and I) and to a lesser extent Jeff. Jeff is entitled to his opinion and during the listening tests to the stock unit. In fact, it is not surprising that during the ABX tests that Jeff preferred the stock unit. That was not the case of Dennis and myself.

Particularly on the fly and not necessarily as a sighted test because we could not see which unit was playing it was generally found that the upgraded Onkyo had a smoother sound with veils lifted from the sound of the stock unit. The overall presentation of the upgraded unit even with the switching box was found to have less etch or harsh sound, there was more detail, clearer sound, etc. to the playback. This was opinion of both Dennis and myself.

The greatest problem that we, me in particular had and this was undoubtedly to my being extremely nervous for these tests in recognizing which was the X unit when it was played. Both Dennis and I had a reasonably high percentage of identifying the preferred sound of the upgraded unit (though it may not be of statistically high enough value). However, as mentioned, I am of the opinion that if the units were run head to head without the switching box that the differences would have been much more noticeable.

In addition, after Jeff had left, Dennis and I continued to listen and inserted the upgraded NuForce Edition Oppo 83 into the system and we found that the sound of the upgraded Onkyo 5508 continued to improve even more. In fact, the affect was cumulative. In addition to that, Dennis and I also compared the sound of the NuForce Edition Oppo 83SE with both a stock power cord and also with one of the new TimePortal Power cords. I know that most will not believe this, but there was an immediate difference noted between the power cords particularly in the amount of bass output.

To the best of my knowledge, Dennis will be getting an upgraded Onkyo 5508 to further compare. Let us wait for Dennis to have the opportunity to listen more, and it is quite possible that other tests will be run and in all likelihood without the usage of the switching box, which I had objected to when this whole testing method was suggested. AB and ABX testing is not the only way of making comparisons. Finally some of the differences in the sound may take some time to truly realize and that was more time than we had to listen.

Rich
post #578 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

That is what we all want to know but there are 2 ways to be certain of it. One is to do the proper basic A/B/X and the other is to put your trust in a multivariate sighted ad hoc comparison. The introduction of multiple variables muddies both approaches.

Touché, but offering two extremes is the refuge of a scoundrel. I'm sure there's middle ground.
post #579 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

I happen to own a neat-o bridge in Brooklyn I'd be willing to part with for a very nominal sum......

Oh, I'd very much like to purchase that bridge. I've had a terrible string of bad luck with prior claimed owners. I trust you will be different. PM sent!
post #580 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

I am the third member of the session at Dennis'. I brought both the upgraded Onkyo 5508 and the upgraded NuForce Edition Oppo 83SE.

I have not participated in basically any audio fora since November.

I also want to make it clear that when I arrived, I was totally unfamiliar with Dennis' system and its sound.

I want to make comment and others may differ about this, that we were quite probably losing much of the improved performance of the Onkyo 5508 through the usage of the switching box. The switching box may have as some may think leveled the playing field, but in so doing removed much of the benefit of the upgrades themselves.

Even when we listened to the stock versus the upgraded units with the switching box we (particularly Dennis and I) and to a lesser extent Jeff. Jeff is entitled to his opinion and during the listening tests to the stock unit. In fact, it is not surprising that during the ABX tests that Jeff preferred the stock unit. That was not the case of Dennis and myself.

Particularly on the fly and not necessarily as a sighted test because we could not see which unit was playing it was generally found that the upgraded Onkyo had a smoother sound with veils lifted from the sound of the stock unit. The overall presentation of the upgraded unit even with the switching box was found to have less etch or harsh sound, there was more detail, clearer sound, etc. to the playback. This was opinion of both Dennis and myself.

The greatest problem that we, me in particular had and this was undoubtedly to my being extremely nervous for these tests in recognizing which was the X unit when it was played. Both Dennis and I had a reasonably high percentage of identifying the preferred sound of the upgraded unit (though it may not be of statistically high enough value). However, as mentioned, I am of the opinion that if the units were run head to head without the switching box that the differences would have been much more noticeable.

In addition, after Jeff had left, Dennis and I continued to listen and inserted the upgraded NuForce Edition Oppo 83 into the system and we found that the sound of the upgraded Onkyo 5508 continued to improve even more. In fact, the affect was cumulative. In addition to that, Dennis and I also compared the sound of the NuForce Edition Oppo 83SE with both a stock power cord and also with one of the new TimePortal Power cords. I know that most will not believe this, but there was an immediate difference noted between the power cords particularly in the amount of bass output.

To the best of my knowledge, Dennis will be getting an upgraded Onkyo 5508 to further compare. Let us wait for Dennis to have the opportunity to listen more, and it is quite possible that other tests will be run and in all likelihood without the usage of the switching box, which I had objected to when this whole testing method was suggested. AB and ABX testing is not the only way of making comparisons. Finally some of the differences in the sound may take some time to truly realize and that was more time than we had to listen.

Rich

Rich, thank you for stepping forward. I did not post anything on your results because I respect you. But you are wrong on the switch and so very wrong on putting any confidence whatsoever in sighted "testing." And apparently, the reality distortion field has corrupted your memory on what I preferred during the sighted "test" - in ALL cases I preferred the modded unit. And since the blind test was ... blind, there is no way for any hidden agenda on my part. The fact remains that in an accepted protocol, with every advantage being given to us to hear a difference (remember the recording selection process and how we ONLY used material on which we heard a difference during the sighted portion?), none of us could reliably hear a difference between the two units. Performance advantages of all of the mods was lost in the switch? What a crock - and a very convenient crock as well.

As for another modded unit, well there will always be some reason why it wouldn't be preferred in a blind test because we all KNOW that it does sound better.

For anybody interested, there is science behind why we don't believe science. Of course, if you already deny science, then there really isn't any point in reading it.
post #581 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Rich, thank you for stepping forward. I did not post anything on your results because I respect you. But you are wrong on the switch and so very wrong on putting any confidence whatsoever in sighted "testing." And apparently, the reality distortion field has corrupted your memory on what I preferred during the sighted "test" - in ALL cases I preferred the modded unit. And since the blind test was ... blind, there is no way for any hidden agenda on my part. The fact remains that in an accepted protocol, with every advantage being given to us to hear a difference (remember the recording selection process and how we ONLY used material on which we heard a difference during the sighted portion?), none of us could reliably hear a difference between the two units. Performance advantages of all of the mods was lost in the switch? What a crock - and a very convenient crock as well.

For anybody interested, there is science behind why we don't believe science. Of course, if you already deny science, then there really isn't any point in reading it.

Jeff,

Perhaps I over simplified the comments regarding your preferences. But, having seen the results, during the blind ABX test for stereo in all but 1 of the 6 samples your results indicated your preference for the stock unit.

Rich
post #582 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

Jeff,

Perhaps I over simplified the comments regarding your preferences. But, having seen the results, during the blind ABX test for stereo in all but 1 of the 6 samples your results indicated your preference for the stock unit.

Rich

Rich, it was blind testing and I could have sworn I was selecting the modded unit based on the sighted portion. That I didn't really says nothing about my preference, any more than yours and Dennis' test results says anything about your preferences.

At what point would you accept that there was not enough audible differences between the two units to make the modded unit consistently identifiable? Is there a point? Or will there always be some flaw in the process that negated the benefits of the mods if the modded unit is not the clear winner?

Jeff
post #583 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

Jeff,

Perhaps I over simplified the comments regarding your preferences. But, having seen the results, during the blind ABX test for stereo in all but 1 of the 6 samples your results indicated your preference for the stock unit.

Rich

I intend to ask the statistician to evaluate the individual results for statistical significance. With n=6, it's entirely possible that 5/6 correct is not enough to show significance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times, it's likely at some point, you could have 5 out of 6 results = heads.

Craig
post #584 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Rich, it was blind testing and I could have sworn I was selecting the modded unit based on the sighted portion. That I didn't really says nothing about my preference, any more than yours and Dennis' test results says anything about your preferences.

At what point would you accept that there was not enough audible differences between the two units to make the modded unit consistently identifiable? Is there a point? Or will there always be some flaw in the process that negated the benefits of the mods if the modded unit is not the clear winner?

Jeff

Jeff,

I am still of the opinion and you disagree that the switching box did or may well have had impact on the performance of the units (and that it may well have restricted more the advantages of the upgraded unit). Other tests may prove otherwise, providing they are run in the future.

It is however interesting that all 3 attenders noted differences I would say reasonably consistently between the stock and the upgraded unit with the switching box at least with some of the material and with the pink noise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I intend to ask the statistician to evaluate the individual results for statistical significance. With n=6, it's entirely possible that 5/6 correct is not enough to show significance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times, it's likely at some point, you could have 5 out of 6 results = heads.

Craig

Craig,

We do not have sufficient data.

Rich
post #585 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

That is what we all want to know but there are 2 ways to be certain of it. One is to do the proper basic A/B/X and the other is to put your trust in a multivariate sighted ad hoc comparison. The introduction of multiple variables muddies both approaches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Touché, but offering two extremes is the refuge of a scoundrel. I'm sure there's middle ground.

I guess my sarcasm was not noted. The second option is the certainty based on denial of inherent bias.
post #586 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

I intend to ask the statistician to evaluate the individual results for statistical significance. With n=6, it's entirely possible that 5/6 correct is not enough to show significance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times, it's likely at some point, you could have 5 out of 6 results = heads.

As your statistician will tell you, we are talking about probabilities in estimating the significance. I, for one, would have to view the preference results in the context of ABX results. Much bigger samples are needed.
post #587 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

Craig,

We do not have sufficient data.

Rich

If the null hypothesis is: "In a blind comparison, there is not a discernible difference between the modded and unmodded units.", we may well have sufficient data to be able to say that... in this test... there was not enough discernible difference between the two units to allow reliable identification of each unit in a blind comparison. IOW, we may have enough data to prove the null hypothesis. Dennis is sending me the raw data. I will have it analyzed tomorrow.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if the null hypothesis is proved, i.e., there is no discernible difference between the 2 units, then one can't say *anything* about preferences. One can't "prefer" something that can't be determined to be different than something else. How can one prefer one thing if both things are the same?

Craig
post #588 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

If the null hypothesis is: "In a blind comparison, there is not a discernible difference between the modded and unmodded units.", we may well have sufficient data to be able to say that... in this test... there was not enough discernible difference between the two units to allow reliable identification of each unit in a blind comparison. IOW, we may have enough data to prove the null hypothesis. Dennis is sending me the raw data. I will have it analyzed tomorrow.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if the null hypothesis is proved, i.e., there is no discernible difference between the 2 units, then one can't say *anything* about preferences. One can't "prefer" something that can't be determined to be different than something else. How can one prefer one thing if both things are the same?

Craig

Craig,

I do not want to belabor this, but if the switching box did in fact eliminate or reduce the performance of the upgraded unit to the point that little difference was noted between the units then the data is all but worthless.

Rich
post #589 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

As your statistician will tell you, we are talking about probabilities in estimating the significance.

Yes, for identification results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I, for one, would have to view the preference results in the context of ABX results. Much bigger samples are needed.

Yes, for preference results.
post #590 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Rich, would a blind A/B/X test with the operator manually switching the cables be convincing enough for you?

And to back up a bit, you did hear a difference and prefer the modded unit during the sighted instantaneous session, didn't you?

Jeff
post #591 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

Craig,

I do not want to belabor this, but if the switching box did in fact eliminate or reduce the performance of the upgraded unit to the point little difference was noted between the units then the data is all but worthless.

Rich

Yeah, an "upgraded" switch was needed. Maybe if the switch had been sent to DS he could have "upgraded" it.
post #592 of 1596
Why can't you just set-up one unit with a amp , single speaker & then another unit with another same exact amp & another single speaker , use the same source material feed into both @ the same time .
Then just use the gain controls to move back & forth between the two ? no switch but same instant results , have a blind fold on the subject's eyes .
I'm sure someone has a pair of mono blocks to use as amps ?
post #593 of 1596
This is an e-mail response (it was forwarded to me) from Dave Schulte as to how he thinks about testing and why/how it should be accomplished:

Hi Dennis,

All SE upgrade clients who have Onkyo's and Integra's have heard dramatic improvements on both on Pure Direct, Direct, Stereo, all surround modes, Audessey on or off, all settings, all software, wether it's via HDMI, RCA or XLR analog, or the SPDIF coax or toslink inputs. We've never had one returned. The RFI & EMI shielding is the key to our success. When you guys compared the Onkyo's running through a switcher, doing so reduced the "Signal to noise ratio" and the upgrades down literally to the quality of the switcher, and down to the "signal to noise ratio" of the switcher. In effect, you erased the upgrades. Far more so then if an SE upgraded Onkyo is running into a stock amplifier. This was due to all of the additional HDMI cabling which operates in the "radio frequency domain" collecting a ton of RFI out of the airwaves, as did the HDMI switcher and it's parts and circuit boards inside it. The HDMI switcher also contaminated the audio and video signals with EMI from the power used to operate the relays. Less then millimeters away inside the relays. Bad news, no comparison should never have been setup that way. The Stereophile reviewer who loaned you the HDMI switcher should be shown this. Please forward this to him and direct him to our website so that he may discover the root cause of less then faithful electronic reproduction of audio and video signals. Consumer electronics are built "For Profit" and as such are not effectively shielded from internal nor external RFI or EMI.

The best method I have found to compare is:

1) Afford each unit at least a 2+hr warmup time since the last time it was powered off.
2) Never shut it down during comparisons.
3) Use the exact same HDMI cable and the same RCA or XLR analog output and input cables
4) Use identical power cords plugged into the same outlet on a good powerline conditioner.
5) Both units should be set upon the same resonance support, the stock feet directly upon the same
shelving. Never stack units on top of each other or atop another component, this changes the sound
for the worse.
6) Ideally both the stock and upgraded units should have close to identical hours of use since new.
There is a direct correlation between hours of use and perceived performance in double blind studies.

In short, here's what's going on with all stock audio or video equipment:

Take a look inside any brand. The wiring, circuitry, and parts on the circuit boards are almost always all unshielded, left open and exposed to collect the radio frequency radiation emitted by the numerous clocks inside the unit and collected out of the airwaves that are all around us. Some manufacturers have started employing wrapping on flat ribbon conductors and sleeves over wiring, but it's not done correctly nor enough. This "trade secret upgrade approach" was pioneered in consumer electronics by David J. Schulte nearly 30 years ago. It is a theft of our trade secret in fact.

Stock consumer electronic equipment is bombarded with high amplitude radio frequency contamination constantly, millions of times per second, right out of the airwaves which are all around us, and from 1 or more "clocks" inside the unit. The Oppo 95 and Onkyo Pro have 5-6 clocks inside spewing RFI millions of times per second into anything metallic.

Airborne RFI collection by all associated cabling as well as the circuitry and parts themselves has been proven to ruin both the measured and performance of both digital and analog equipment alike.

Take an Oppo 93 for example. Installing high end parts and a dac produces small improvements, but it has never lifted the modest 93's performance to State of the Art. Leaving the entire Oppo 93's wiring, circuitry, dac, transport, DSP, video, analog stages etc everything inside exposed to heavy internally generated radio frequency contamination ruins it's performance potential. The 93 has many "clocks" which each spew high amplitude RF inside the unit into all circuitry, all wiring, all parts, ruining it's potential by constantly contaminating the actual signals containing the audio and video information, millions of times per second.

All digital devices have at least 1 clock, which contaminates the entire unit inside. In all stock players, none of the parts or wiring or circuit boards or chip sets or DAC's are shielded. Audio & video signals actually become corrupted with the out of bandwidth signals emitted from the clock(s) which then gets reproduced right along with the actual audio or video information. The DAC & video chipsets are typically located just millimeters to inches away from the actual dac/video scaling chipsets trying to faithfully reproduce the content. What's really alarming is the fact that the volume of radio frequency noise is typically the same volume as the actual audio or video signals themselves. Most signals operate in the millivolt range in digital or analog sources, digital or analog preamplifiers, and the first stage of all power amplifiers. It is no wonder
stock digital has never reached the performance of an excellent vinyl playback setup.

The "out of band" radio frequency noise being emitted from the digital clocks places extra heavy demand upon all, chipsets, transport, DSP, HDMI, and audio and video amplifying devices in both audio and video circuits. All sections must work overtime reproducing the radio frequency noise millions of times per second right along with the actual audio or video signals. This dramatically harms any brand or model's ability to faithfully reproduce the actual audio and video signals, regardless of cost or prestige.

In addition, in both analog and digital gear, the power supplies get drained reproducing millions of pulses of RFI per second. This places extra heavy demands on both the main and local power supplies, draining the power storage capacitors very fast, leaving greatly reduced power on tap to reproduce the actual audio and video content.

Surprisingly, analog tubed and solid state power amplifiers & tubed & solid state preamplifiers exhibit tremendously improved performance on both measurements and in comparison tests, not just digital units. Radio frequencies are in the airwaves all around us. All internal wiring/circuitry/parts and external power cords and interconnect cabling collect RFI noise millions of times per second. This all gets piled on top of the RFI & EMI the unit itself generates. Lastly, solder joints and the entire underside of circuit boards not just the circuit traces themselves, all collect RFI like crazy right out of the air from the clocks inside the unit and out of the airwaves all around us.

As you can see, RFI & EMI contamination is the root cause of less then perfect signal reproduction.
post #594 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastslappy View Post

Why can't you just set-up one unit with a amp , single speaker & then another unit with another same exact amp & another single speaker , use the same source material feed into both @ the same time .
Then just use the gain controls to move back & forth between the two ? no switch but same instant results , have a blind fold on the subject's eyes .
I'm sure someone has a pair of mono blocks to use as amps ?

If you don't use the same speaker or speakers, there the will be some positional clues as to which it operating.
post #595 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Yeah, an "upgraded" switch was needed. Maybe if the switch had been sent to DS he could have "upgraded" it.

He can't have mine until we can compare an "upgraded" switch with the stock switch in a blind test.
post #596 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastslappy View Post

Why can't you just set-up one unit with a amp , single speaker & then another unit with another same exact amp & another single speaker , use the same source material feed into both @ the same time .
Then just use the gain controls to move back & forth between the two ? no switch but same instant results , have a blind fold on the subject's eyes .
I'm sure someone has a pair of mono blocks to use as amps ?

...Or maybe the mute switch instead of the volume knob...?

We could do this in mono or stereo, using my 5 channel EAD amp.

The only problem is the speakers can't occupy the same space....
post #597 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Rich, would a blind A/B/X test with the operator manually switching the cables be convincing enough for you?

And to back up a bit, you did hear a difference and prefer the modded unit during the sighted instantaneous session, didn't you?

Jeff

The only thing I am certain of is that you will NEVER be able
to convince Rich that his 'modded' unit is not substantially
better than a stock unit. There will ALWAYS flaws and errors
with this or that etc,etc. A hopeless excercise,though I applaud
your efforts.
post #598 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastslappy View Post

Why can't you just set-up one unit with a amp , single speaker & then another unit with another same exact amp & another single speaker , use the same source material feed into both @ the same time .
Then just use the gain controls to move back & forth between the two ? no switch but same instant results , have a blind fold on the subject's eyes .
I'm sure someone has a pair of mono blocks to use as amps ?

Your proposal is based on the presumption that the two amps and two speakers are, in fact, identical and indistinguishable. Even if they are, the speakers cannot occupy the same exact location and, if placed side-by-side, they will influence each other asymmetrically.

I wonder, also, why there is a presumption that a high-quality switch would invalidate a comparison between such complex devices as these.
post #599 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturephoto1 View Post

I do not want to belabor this, but if the switching box did in fact eliminate or reduce the performance of the upgraded unit to the point that little difference was noted between the units then the data is all but worthless.

What aspect of the switching box would have a negative impact on the TUC modded unit but did not have the same negative impact on the stock unit? I think those that are claiming the switch box effected this comparison need to show some actual technical reasoning behind their claims.

Bill
post #600 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I understand but doing an A/B/X test with material and a speaker configuration that bears no relationship to actual use seems ... wrong.

But this isn't actual use, it's a test. Like using a magnifying glass to test the authenticity of a painting, even though that's not how you view it at an art gallery.

The more speakers you use, the more difficult it is to tell differences. Why deliberately create conditions that promote a null result? Much fairer to give the best fighting chance to hearing differences.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company?